Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1F9ED347 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:57:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 66615 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2012 00:57:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 66575 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2012 00:57:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 66567 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2012 00:57:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:57:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.219.52] (HELO mail-oa0-f52.google.com) (209.85.219.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:57:45 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o6so1139180oag.11 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:57:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=XURMsVz7vHBbMPabdogiZGdHtdfxG/35rB+I0zmtdaY=; b=mK7xpzl6LTcP4b+lPSWTk0hxsORONP3nEbYOMT/b/7ltqsy4O4Vcgj27N7ylurfclQ 4zeeXs1YjOfmRwtS0F2uMGi2RGckLg5u+HzqbX1kCkWI4XP/ExV/XSrttH5KGiRYB1IB wexAMYN1pWWdH9DJLBg4/9EvFY1+XDvIP2S437eJ8A9F5kwviwDbzMElhzZoiWeA6cHg opAU7HOPKhigkDRKwun3YZkhUG3Q3ClxfWI1XG2XeifWoGQxYuaSTxdQuXKStMNaph9o 1qQoLl/bI8CiyVT2f6Nf/FfBOYj5+rPhvhUeGg1NZuDSjl7mqlnM3kJnHY2rDbx/VIcd MjEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.172.107 with SMTP id bb11mr5929412oec.96.1349398644984; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.69.168 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [84.112.19.176] In-Reply-To: <03E4E5E9-155B-4C59-8CC4-D63C4CE5714D@gmail.com> References: <03E4E5E9-155B-4C59-8CC4-D63C4CE5714D@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 02:57:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Can I trust _replicator state in 1.2.0 From: Dave Cottlehuber To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxNObL5h7ZpukbS2048a5fRKe2pjcJP+i5k5l8VEbY+9ZS+Rat2Le64I4zZT7xHm7D+PLr On 4 October 2012 21:56, stephen bartell wrote: > +1 Im curious on this one too. > > Currently we have implemented our own replicator. It'd be nice to move to couch's own replicator. > > Stephen Bartell > > "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Einstein > > On Oct 4, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Steve Koppelman wrote: > >> Running couchdb 0.10, 1.0.1 and 1.1.1 over the last couple of years, I >> got very familiar with the shortcomings of continuous replication. >> Replication would simply stop without warning at some point, but the >> replication document's status would remain "triggered". Eventually, I >> just set up a cron job that periodically wiped out the entire >> _replicator database and repopulated a new one. It was horrible, but >> was less of a hassle than writing code to iterate through all the >> replication relationships and compare the nodes' last-updated-document >> timestamps for applications that could deal with a few minutes' >> replication lag. >> >> As I build out a new cluster, I'm curious to know whether it's safe to >> trust a replication job's reported state under 1.2.0, or if there's >> another recommended way to go. This isn't a banking or airline booking >> system, so some replication lag is fine as long as there's eventual >> consistency. >> >> Rgds., etc. >> >> -sk > Are you able to open a jira ticket with what's not been working, and ideally some logs or errors or other information? I'm not a huge replication user myself, but I have heard of reports of leakage in our usage of mochiweb with continuous replication, and possibly SSL. But my recollection might be wrong. Benoit, Paul - ring any bells? A+ Dave